From the Edges

Cartoons

The NIH Keeps Up With The Times: 1, 2,
3.
David Baltimore Has A Flashback: ***. The NY Times Keeps Up With Times: ***.
The Faith of Anthony Fauci: ***. Anthony Fauci Explains How HIV Causes AIDS: ***.
Robert Gallo on The Force of Ejaculation: ***, on HIV Theory: ***, Lectures in Marseilles: ***.
David Ho Does The Math: ***.
John Mellors Sets the Record Straight: ***.
Bono, el Magnifico, Holds (Another) Press Conference: ***.
Anthony Fauci Explains Journalism in the Age of AIDS: ***.
Anthony Fauci and David Ho Disprove an Old Adage: ***.
Anthony Fauci Explains ICL and AIDS: ***
The CDC Can't Keep Up With The Times:***
The Method of the "Small Inquisitor" Moore:***
The Co-Discovery of a Nobel-Worthy Enzymatic Activity:***
The Revenge of the "Very" Minor Moriarty:***
Julie Gerberding and Anthony Fauci Learn Arithmetic:***
Osama Obama Has a Message for Africa:***

October 19, 2008

In 2006, the professional AIDS activist crowd held a boring, soporific, atrociously irrelevant conference in Toronto, which we dubbed, the International Yawn Fest. It was so bad even Dr. Bob "Scientific Misconduct" Gallo thought it a farce, unworthy of his hallowed attendance. We heartily agreed.

Two years later, with great mirth, we have moved from Snooze Fest to Snub Fest -- the glaring and conspicuous, scientific cold-cocking of that rascal Gallo by the Nobel Committee, who awarded the Nobel Prize to Dr. Montagnier for his discovery of HIV, but overlooked the, ahem, "contributions" of co-discoverer, Dr. Gallo.

Those smart folks in Sweden, we reckon, have a simple rule -- if you "discover" a new human retrovirus via Le French Service Postale, sorry, no prize for you.

Half of the award will be shared by two French virologists, Françoise Barré-Sinoussi, 61, and Luc A. Montagnier, 76, for discovering H.I.V., the virus that causes AIDS.Conspicuously omitted was Dr. Robert C. Gallo, an American virologist who vied with the French team in a long, often acrimonious dispute over credit for the discovery of H.I.V

Conspicuous?!!? -- You mean like a large matzoh ball hanging off your lip, during a lunch time meeting with the boss?

The list of these biting, obviously painful articles (to Gallo's pride and prestige) goes on and on and on and on. They are too abundant to list. This would be comical, if not so tragic. As Shakespeare tells us, "That which originates from a dark deed, will blossom in a foul manner." A less macabre perspective has been proffered by one famous scientist, who described Montagnier and Gallo as "two bumbling thieves fighting over fake diamonds."

But which is it? LAV, HTLV-III, or HIV? why all the name changes?
Why the quotation marks? Why the bad attitude toward our esteemed Dr.
Luc?

Perhaps some of you will be kind enough to come along and help tell
the story of Dr. Montagnier, and his amazing "discovery" – stimulated
cell-cultures, swollen lymph nodes, window-dressers, and all.

In the meantime, a few quotes to get you started. See if they make you
scratch your head even in the slightest, as you try to stick to the
orthodox definition, of "Sida." (That's French, you know, just like Dr. M.).

Interviewer: Why no purification?

Montagnier: "We saw some particles but they did not
have the morphology [shape] typical of retroviruses … They were very
different. Relatively different. So with the culture it took many hours
to find the first pictures. It was a Roman effort! It's easy to
criticise after the event. What we did not have, and I have always
recognised it, was that it was truly the cause of AIDS."

Complex stuff! So, what is purification? What is
LAV? And what did it do? What was HTLV-III, and where did it come from?
What were the proteins from the HTLV-III experiments used to make and manufacture?

But, after all, what does it matter. Sweden has spoken – Montagnier
says he didn't need to purify [isolate a virus], and he won the Nobel
Prize! (Not Bob Gallo ).

Montagnier: "I think we should put the same weight now on the co-factors as we have on HIV."

But, what's a co-factor? Is this a cofactor? Do co-factors cause Sida?

And of course, we must immediately stop telling people that being "LAV" positive (LAV is what Lucky Luc called his discovery – a "swollen-lymph-node-associated virus") is a death sentence. According to the expert:

Montagnier: "Psychological factors are critical in
supporting immune function. If you suppress this psychological support
by telling someone he's condemned to die, your words alone will have
condemned him." [4]

Montagnier: "AIDS does not inevitably lead to
death, especially if you suppress the co-factors that support the
disease. It is very important to tell this to people who are infected."
[5][6][7]

So, onward and upward. We've got psychological factors to un-suppress, and co-factors to treat! Sida will be conquered! (Even though it's no longer (and never was) a heterosexual problem…unless you're African. So say the experts! So say we all!)

August 24, 2008

If you are a person diagnosed as seropositive (HIV-positive) and live a normal life
without taking antiretrovirals, you can help me with a book that
I am writing, a book that will feature the testimonies of those who have survived
this diagnosis. This book will be in support of and will be of great help
to those who suffer the social Calvary of seropositivity and AIDS.
History will recognize the courage and bravery of each witness and
your testimony will support and bring hope to those affected, demonstrating
that it is possible to escape the incorrect forecasts of the official view on AIDS.

August 09, 2008

"There is this idea that more is always better, and if a test is available we should use it. A lot of time we're doing more harm than good."'

-- Dr. Howard A. Brody, a professor of family medicine at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston on new questions about the advisability of PSA testing for prostate cancer.

WASHINGTON — The blood test millions of men undergo each year to screen for prostate cancer leads to so much unnecessary anxiety, surgery and complications that doctors should stop testing elderly men, and it remains unclear whether the test is worthwhile for younger men, a federal task force concluded Monday.

August 06, 2008

One can only be rescued from a group fantasy the moment such a fantasy begins to fundamentally conflict with one's core beliefs and values. To that end, I offer the following two quotes:

Clinton's advice to beat Aids: stay faithful

Bill Clinton made a plea yesterday for a new emphasis on monogamy as a key element in the battle against Aids.

The
former US president, not noted for his ability to keep his own marriage
vows, said it was very important to change people's attitudes to sex.

In
an interview with the BBC recorded in Africa, Mr Clinton said that
increasing support for monogamy was not just a problem for the
continent worst hit by Aids but for the world.

"To pretend we
can ever get hold of this without dealing with that – the idea of
unprotected sexual relations with unlimited numbers of partners – I
think would be naïve," he said.

Experts believe that the nature
of Africans' relationships may help explain the continent's high rate
of Aids. Research suggests a higher frequency of overlapping sexual
partnerships.

Compare this quote to the following:

Clinton says Africans must change sexual behaviour

Former president Bill Clinton told Africans last night that they must
practice sexual responsibility in order to solve the AIDS crisis.

Clinton, who has become an unofficial AIDS goodwill ambassador
since leaving office, spoke to an estimated 20,000 trade unionists who
had gathered in the Rimping Amphitheatre in Lagos, Nigeria.

"In this, the greatest crisis to ever affect Africans, I call
on you to help us win the war against AIDS. You can start by being
faithful to your wives," he said.

"It is absolutely essential that you always wear condoms," he
remarked....

"We of the richer nations want to help you Africans defeat this
terrible plague.... Working together, we can triumph over
HIV/AIDS...."

One of these is an excerpt from a "health news" article published this morning in a prominent British newspaper. The other comes from a piece of satire written seven years ago. Can you tell which is real and which is satire?

Let me help you out by filling in one of the dot-dot-dot's for you:

"It is absolutely essential that you always wear condoms," he
remarked. "Not only do they protect you and your partner from AIDS,
they will also prevent semen stains from getting on your partner's
clothing. Ruined clothes can plunge a woman deeper into poverty because
she has to spend food money to buy replacements."

"You must not have affairs with young girls and come in their
mouths without a condom. This is the height of irresponsibility....

Clark Baker, a private investigator and retired LAPD officer, was hired by the SSI to investigate Duesberg and Farber, after members of SSI received political retaliation for giving the awards. As Baker describes in his report,

"In the spirit of freedom and science, SSI commissioned this report to respond to questions and arguments regarding Professor Duesberg’s unanswered questions of Dr. Gallo’s 1984 HIV hypothesis. As an independent investigator who could not be influenced by the threats or attacks made against vulnerable SSI members and others; and as someone who had never heard of Duesberg, Gallo, Farber, or AIDS Denialism before May 2008, SSI believed that this investigator had the unbiased and proven investigative experience necessary to examine both sides of the controversy. For his efforts, this investigator was not compensated."

Baker's complete report, "Gallo's Egg", vindicating Duesberg and Farber can be read in its entirety here. Baker concludes, "Based upon the evidence contained in this report, this investigator must agree with hundreds of reputable scientists and doctors who remain unconvinced that Dr. Gallo’s retrovirus is real or has anything to do with the disease called AIDS.... As I looked at the evidence against Duesberg and Farber, I found evidence of prevarication, subterfuge, libel, and criminal behavior on the Gallo side against that PNAS-published science of Duesberg’s side."

You can listen to Baker interviewed on the Robert Scott Bell podcast at the following two links:

Back in the day – before Paris Hilton carried a pooch in her handbag, before professional dog-walking was a serious career, and before "doggy day-care" even existed – the most popular cure for an unhappy canine was, as the nursery rhyme goes, to give the dog a bone.

How times have changed. A surge in the popularity of household animals, coupled with the licensing of several new veterinary drugs, is seeing thousands of American dog owners replace comforting marrow-bones with a chemically enhanced modern alternative: Pet Prozac.

Lifestyle drugs to treat troubled canines for depression, anxiety, bad behaviour and even obesity are being launched by pharmaceutical firms anxious to cash-in on the nation's booming love affair with man's best friend. Most of the new pills are almost identical to those popped by humans – and some are proving very controversial indeed.

This month, the American Veterinary Medical Association's (AVMA) annual convention in New Orleans, attended by more than 10,000 of the country's leading vets, saw a heated debate about the doggie anti-depressants Clomicalm and Reconcile, and a product called Slentrol – the world's first canine anti-obesity pill.

July 23, 2008

Our Buddies at Roche are moving from one boondoggle to another. Bye-bye to AIDS drugs, Hello to Hep C drugs! Lord have mercy! More drugs for a different set of non-viruses:)

Our gal on the spot, Ann Thayer (PhD from UC Berkeley in chemistry) has the goods:

SWISS PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANYRoche has discontinued research on HIV therapies after determining that nothing in its pipeline would offer enough benefit over existing drugs to warrant further development. Roche had been investigating several new antiretrovirals, all of which were at the preclinical stage and at least six years away from the market.

Roche will, however, continue to support the few therapies and diagnostics it already makes, according to a company spokeswoman. These include the protease inhibitors Invirase and Viracept (sold outside the U.S.) and the cell-fusion inhibitor Fuzeon.

In 2007, worldwide sales of Fuzeon reached $267 million but dropped 34% in the first quarter of 2008 because of competition from new HIV drugs. In 2006, Roche stopped selling Hivid, which was launched in 1992 and was one of the first three HIV drugs marketed, as other treatments superseded it.

About 30 individual medicines or combinations are available to treat the 33 million people infected with HIV. Another 50 drugs are in clinical development, according to the industry trade group Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America. Market research from Datamonitor predicts the global HIV drug market will grow about 3.7% per year to $11.5 billion in 2016.

Roche will redeploy scientists in HIV research to other activities, its spokeswoman says. The company's virology efforts are largely focused on hepatitis C, with three products in clinical trials. If Roche identifies a significant HIV-related breakthrough outside the company, she says it would consider contributing in some way, as it did in developing Fuzeon with the biotech firm Trimeris.

In the past, activists have targeted Roche for its drug-pricing policies in poor countries and the $25,000 annual cost for Fuzeon. The difficult-to-manufacture peptide drug was the first new treatment for drug-resistant patients, points out Jules Levin, executive director of the National AIDS Treatment Advocacy Project.

AIDS advocacy groups regret the loss of any research efforts. Although a burst of new drugs has hit the market in the past two years, the pipeline is actually pretty skimpy, says Peter Staley, founder of informational website AIDSmeds.com. Most candidates are only in early clinical trials. Roche's commitment to hepatitis C, however, is viewed as important because the disease is a leading cause of death for those people also infected with HIV.

Plans for a large human trial of a promising government-developed H.I.V. vaccine in the United States were canceled Thursday because a top federal official said scientists realized that they did not know enough about how H.I.V. vaccines and the immune system interact.

The decision is a major setback in an effort to develop an H.I.V. vaccine that began 24 years ago when government health officials promised a marketed vaccine by 1987. Health officials have long contended that such a vaccine would be their best weapon to control the AIDS pandemic.

A number of other H.I.V. vaccines are in various stages of testing around the world. But there had been high hopes for the government’s trial because the potential vaccine was among a new class that sought to stimulate the immune system in a different way

A number of other H.I.V. vaccines are in various stages of testing around the world. But there had been high hopes for the government’s trial because the potential vaccine was among a new class that sought to stimulate the immune system in a different way.

The official who canceled the government trial, Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said it was becoming clearer that more fundamental research and animal testing would be needed before an H.I.V. vaccine was ever marketed.

Scientists say that developing a vaccine against H.I.V. is one of the most difficult scientific endeavors in history because of the uncanny nature of the virus.

The government vaccine — known as PAVE, for Partnership for AIDS Vaccine Evaluation — was similar to a much-heralded vaccine that failed last year. That vaccine was developed by Merck, and Dr. Fauci’s agency helped pay for the Merck trials.

Dr. Fauci said he reached his decision to cancel the coming trial after meeting with scientists to try to understand why the Merck vaccine had failed. He said he had concluded that scientists must go a step at a time because they did not yet know fundamental facts like which immune reactions are the most important in preventing the infection.

Dr. Fauci said the new trial was intended to determine whether the vaccine could significantly lower the amount of H.I.V. in the blood of those who become infected. He said a smaller trial was needed to figure out whether the vaccine could do that before large trials were conducted.

“Show me that the vaccine works by lowering the amount of H.I.V. in the blood,” Dr. Fauci said. “Then we will move to a larger trial that will document the link with a particular immune response.” He added that until then, “doing a large trial is not justified.”'

Is he joking? They don't find any HIV in the blood. That's why they use all these bogus surrogate markers (unspecific antibodies, white blood cell counts, dna fragments)for the intrepid virus. Culture the virus, and measure the titer!

Dr. Alan Bernstein, executive director of the Global HIV Vaccine Enterprise, said that his organization supported Dr. Fauci’s decision and that there was an “urgent need for a diversity of new approaches to H.I.V. vaccine design.”

For instance, Dr. Bernstein said, recent laboratory advances, which allow scientists to look at hundreds of genes simultaneously, “offer immense promise in helping us understand how to design new H.I.V. vaccine candidates that can achieve long-lasting immune protection.”

The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming. The APS is also sponsoring public debate on the validity of global warming science. The leadership of the society had previously called the evidence for global warming "incontrovertible."

New Rule -- any scientist or scientific organization that refuses to debate or discuss a scientific topic in their own field of expertise is probably masking some serious doubt about their views and is merely trying to prevent whatever petty financial, sociological or cultural fiefdom from ordinary scrutiny.

We are pleased.

Update: After publication of this story, the APS responded with a statement that its Physics and Society Forum is merely one unit within the APS, and its views do not reflect those of the Society at large.